Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 382 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#341

Post by newjersey »

nindalf wrote: post #309
gyardley wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there is a tendency to replace like with like, that's because Supreme Court justices usually time their retirements to coincide with presidencies that share their views. In this case, I doubt it applies. In theory Obama could pick a nominee closer to the center to avoid a tiresome confirmation battle, but I suspect there's a bigger bang for the buck in nominating fairly left-wing candidates and making the Repub…

> looking obstructionist to the general public Could you explain why this might cost the Republicans votes? Their core voters would absolutely love them standing up to the "tyranny" of Obama. Even independent/undecided voters would understand that its reasonable enough to postpone considering how close the Presidential election is. To be clear, I think it would be best to have it completed within 3 months, like the p…

It can be a good call to arms for the Democrats though. If the nomination is withheld long enough, lobbies like EMILY's list will get more donations and will raise more noise. and rightly so because more is at stake.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#342

Post by MaysonL »

wildmusings wrote: post #241
maxlybbert wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at oral argument, Scalia made it clear that only legal votes should be counted. To be honest, since the question was "what is a legal vote?" that seemed like circular reasoning. The underlying idea, though, is that if I walk into a polling place, and proudly yell my vote, and walk out, my vote isn't counted regardless of how clear the intent was. Scalia's suggestion was that if a vote couldn't be read by a mach…

I'd say a legal vote is one that is filled out in accordance with the instructions on a legal ballot. From what you're saying, I suspect that's what Scalia meant. If the machine misreads such properly filled-out ballots, that is certainly a problem and a recount would be justified.

No: a legal vote is as defined by Florida election law. As I remember (quite possibly fallaciously) that law held that a vote was to be counted if the intent was clear.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#343

Post by tptacek »

oska wrote: post #325
ianamartin wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those o…

Glenn Greenwald: “This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.” “...the key point is this: those who admire t…

That is rich, considering the source.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#344

Post by MaysonL »

liquidise wrote: post #45

This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the second most conservative justice beside Thomas. There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.

It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans will be as obstructionist to an Obama SCOTUS appointment as they have been to almost everthing else he proposes.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#345

Post by cookiecaper »

hackuser wrote: post #311
nickff wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is plainly untrue; Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights, and often decided cases which went against his personal morality. He was often quoted saying that the side he liked got no preferential consideration when it came to deciding a case, and if you look at the way he wrote his opinions, you will see this is true. He would often decide in favor of people who he perso…

> Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights That's not my impression and I quickly found the following, but I can't say the examples are representative of the overall trend or if the analyses are accurate (and I can't say the same of your examples). However, they are hard to reconcile with your claim: 1) Scalia is known for taking a hard stance against criminal defendants, and…

Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated.

If you believe you should have a right you don't have, or that you should or shouldn't be sent to jail for a particular activity, the right people to contact and hold accountable are your representatives in the appropriate legislative body. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, even if they personally do not agree with the most accurate interpretation. Changing law or creating new law is the province of the legislature.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#346

Post by cookiecaper »

Steko wrote: post #178
michaelt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think candidates who turn the job down will be expecting another chance later?

Well the simplest game theory is (100% chance to be nominated now but near 0% chance to be confirmed) vs (??% chance to be nominated later but 90%+ chance to be confirmed) which seems fairly straightforward. Given current outlook for POTUS election I would decline in their shoes. An older nominee or one that expected 8+ years of GOP presidents might reasonably say this is their only chance and take it though. I guess…

Yeah, this is an opportunity for Obama to get airtime for a jurist that is too far left to ever get confirmed.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#347

Post by geofft »

DrScump wrote: post #337
geofft wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ted Cruz has already called for the process to get delayed for the next president. (Which seems ridiculous to me, since that's not in line with either Cruz's or Scalia's commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law, but hey.) https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712 The Senate had been (apparently) filibustering presidential appointments quite a bit more of late, both Democrats against Bush and Re…

How's that again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The "nuclear option" was named by Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2003 and first seriously threatened by majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) in 2005. It got actually invoked by the Democrats in 2013, in the reverse situation: the Democrats had a majority but not a supermajority of the Senate, and a Democratic president.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#348

Post by dang »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #327

I'm sorry but I don't think you have any idea how American politics and elections actually work. Democrats in meaningful numbers aren't going to vote for your Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or Trump because the president chose to use a recess appointment because he faced senate leader in McConnell that blatantly proclaimed he and his cohort would not be interested in governance and rather just play obstructionist games. On the c…

> I don't think you have any idea how American politics and elections actually work.

> dumb

> Have you ever met a voter other than yourself.

> naive, impractical, and uninformed

Personal abuse is not allowed in Hacker News comments. It breaks the guidelines by being uncivil and unsubstantive, and provokes reactions in kind (see below). So please edit it out of what you post here.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096684 and marked it off-topic.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#349

Post by dang »

indrax wrote: post #304
mentat wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see these people dealing with their every action criticized through their whole life. Now when he dies they can't stop piling on.

It's one thing to not speak ill of the dead, but you're complaining about a judge having their judgements judged.

The key distinction is between criticizing Scalia's judgements, which many if not most of us would, and denouncing him a human being. The latter is a problem on HN because it rapidly degrades the discourse below the level we hope for.

I also think that a little self-observation is enough to reveal (a) the rather ugly motives behind that mechanism, and (b) how we would each consider it unfair in our own case.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#350

Post by gyardley »

nindalf wrote: post #309
gyardley wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there is a tendency to replace like with like, that's because Supreme Court justices usually time their retirements to coincide with presidencies that share their views. In this case, I doubt it applies. In theory Obama could pick a nominee closer to the center to avoid a tiresome confirmation battle, but I suspect there's a bigger bang for the buck in nominating fairly left-wing candidates and making the Repub…

> looking obstructionist to the general public Could you explain why this might cost the Republicans votes? Their core voters would absolutely love them standing up to the "tyranny" of Obama. Even independent/undecided voters would understand that its reasonable enough to postpone considering how close the Presidential election is. To be clear, I think it would be best to have it completed within 3 months, like the p…

You might very well be right, and I agree that the Republican base would prefer that the Senate just doesn't bother to consider a nominee until after the election.

However, my impression is that independent voters prefer action to inaction and typical behavior to atypical, and will be susceptible to 'the Senate is refusing to do its job' arguments from the President and the Democratic presidential nominee, as well as 'Supreme Court appointments are usually approved in XX days' arguments from the press.

We shall see.

Post reply on HN